A New Conisboro’ Woman Bound over for Assaulting a Denaby Worker

At the Doncaster West Riding Police Court on Saturday, before Mr. G. B. C. Yarbrough, presiding, and other magistrates, Frances Jordan, a married woman, of Conisboro’, was summoned for assaulting William Riley, a miner now employed at the Cadeby Colliery, on the 13th inst.

Mr. W. M. Gichard prosecuted, whilst Mr. G. W. Andrews defended.

Mr. Gichard said that the defendant was the wife of a man who was at present on strike at Denaby, and she was charged with committing an assault on the 13th inst. upon Wm. Riley, a dataller working in the Cadeby mine.

It appeared that on the date in question, between two o’clock and 2.30, a number of men, about fifteen, leaving their work at the Cadeby Colliery, had to cross the bridge leading to a road to Conisboro’.

When they got near to the bridge they saw there was a large crowd of something like 2000 persons gathered there.

Riley and the other fourteen went back, as they did not think there was a sufficient number of police at the end of the bridge to see them safely through the crowd, which seemed, from its general conduct, hostile in its demeanour towards them.

They waited for some little time, until a police sergeant went down to them, and brought them forward.

The police officer had previously arranged for a few officers to be ready to meet them when they came to the end of the bridge.

The complainant Riley and the other workmen then proceeded towards the end of the bridge, where they met the officers that were waiting for them.

The officers then formed an escort for the workmen.

As they were being conducted through the crowd the defendant came from the back of the crowd and deliberately spat in the complainant’s face.

A police officer named Duffin, who was near by, immediately said, “Now, Mrs. Jordan, you will hear more about that.”

The defendant then ran away, and got behind some other women.

The police officer exercised his discretion, and did not follow the woman, as it might have been followed with more serious results.

The crowd hooted and hissed the workmen as the police were escorting them home, and were very hostile.

The police had some difficulty in getting the complainant and the other workmen through the crowd.

They had heard in that Court that day that the duties of the police were very onerous.

He might point out that if conduct of that description was allowed, and was not put down, then the duties of the police would become very onerous, and they would be impossible to perform.

In this case, as in the previous one, he asked the bench to inflict exemplary punishment.

The offence of merely spitting in a man’s face was bad enough, but such an action as that was likely to give rise to very great trouble, especially at such a juncture.

The complainant bore out Mr. Gichard’s statement.

P.C. Slack and P.C. Duffin corroborated the latter statement that he saw the defendant spit in complainant’s face.

P.C. Kilner also gave similar evidence.

Mr. Andrews, for the defence, submitted that the police officers were mistaken, and that it was another woman who spat in the complainant’s face.

Several witnesses gave evidence to this effect.

Luke Cooper, miner, Conisboro’, stated that he happened to be on Kilner’s Bridge at the time, and saw the procession of strikers pass along.

He saw some spit on complainant’s coat, but defendant did not do it.

In answer to Supt. Blake, the witness said he was near the defendant when the complainant and the other workmen were being escorted through the crowd.

He was about 150 yards away.

The Chairman (Mr. Yarbrough) said the magistrates had no hesitation in convicting, but there was no reason why harsh measures should be taken.

All that was needed was that steps should be taken to ensure peace being maintained, and to see that persons could go about their business in a quiet manner.

Defendant was bound over to keep the peace for six months in the sum of £5.